22 inch LCD monitors: the 3rd wave! (page 11: Your input can move things along)

Your input can move things along

Here is a relevant question: who are our readers on BehardWare.fr ? How close are they to our technical expertise? Are they really unable to see color dominances and unexpected black or white afterglow?

We respond that we are somewhat acquainted with you, our readers. You are interested in the technical details, expect high quality (this isn’t flattery, but this seems reasonably true) and are above the average user. You are often in the computer or electronics field. Are there some readers that have not understood this article ? If yes, Samsung prefers that they leave and find something more modest.

To boycott or not boycott this brand ? We say not to boycott.

The question often comes in mail on the forum where I am often accused of complicity (ok, maybe a bit exaggerated) with the brand considering that we do not call for a boycott of Samsung. In my opinion, I think it’s more constructive to try and encourage improvements. We are simply at another stage that will have to be surpassed and this isn’t the first time for monitors.

The evolution of LCDs : a history of a maturing technology. First of all, reactivity.

You may recall, our first LCD screen tests dating back to 2001. At the time, flat screens were just coming out and it was a heyday with prices (800 Euros for a 15 inch!) and characteristics. There was no consistency and, for example, most often the response time was not even given. Everyone considered it as secondary information that shouldn’t be available to the consumers. Moreover, this was a specification we discovered a little by chance. Manufacturers took some time to realize that the widespread adoption of the LCD would have to go through a significant improvement in reactivity, a not too obvious point at the time. In the same way, the panel type was not systematically given (TN, VA, IPS...) and even today there could be some improvement in this area.

So in short, reactivity was improved and significantly so. We aren’t yet to the point of 1 ms screens that were promised two years ago (actually this has been somewhat forgotten) but TN 2 ms quality is good enough for most users.

Round two, a larger conflict: the first criticism on dead pixels. What a mess! This started in 2003 and many manufacturers simply refused to respond. Another amusing point was that some invented their own often bizarre policies. For example, you had to have 10 dead pixels on a 17 inch screen for Samsung to consider replacement or Acer requiring that one of these 10 be in the center of the screen.
In 2003, obtaining the legal standards, the ISO norm, and to correctly understand it (there were many interpretations) wasn’t easy. As for us, it was said we were we looking for advancement by creating an inexistent problem that no mere mortal should bother with because it was beyond the normal competency of standard consumers. In fact, we actually managed to annoy one of the creator’s of this norm (also dealing with the means of determining contrast, viewing angles, etc.), which we didn’t find too coherent. Four years later, all have taken note of this problem, which is now less relevant because LCDs have improved. In product specifications, following the ISO 13406-2 norm has become common if not systematic and it is most often accompanied by an explanation for those who may not understand this aspect.

Round three: HDCP, the article on the expected and imminent activation of HDCP protection on HD digital signals and the PS3. Again they thought we were crazy because many manufacturers (graphic card and screen) explained that what we wanted and what we criticized them for, not integrating HDCP compatibility while they have known about this for years, was impossible. Today, no DVI monitors leave the factory without this famous compatibility...

Round four : colors (more moderate except when Samsung was involved) : we changed our test procedure for LCDs at the end of 2004. We were betting that color fidelity was quickly going to become as important as reactivity for consumers. Once again, no everyone was in agreement, to say the least. However, the misadventure of the 226BW proves this to be the case. It’s now expected that a screen not only be attractive and reactive but also that photos from our digital camera or the internet be rendered with more natural colors. This is a recent phenomenon and not easy for manufacturers to systematically take into account. And we give credit where credit is due: the first manufacturer to offer general public monitors with good color fidelity was.... Samsung ! Moreover, without even telling us, it was them that introduced the first models with good colors by default. This was first on rather high end models, the P series, and then on more affordable ones. Furthermore, for a long time this has been a distinguishing characteristic of this brand (Samsung panels that is) and for two years it went without saying that if colors were good from the start, there was a Samsung panel somehow involved. Even today, Samsung – the panel manufacturer – is still the best in this area, which has been reaffirmed in the sagas of the 226BW and 2232BW.

The next step will involve the integration of video correction circuitry. Once again, when we started testing with movies and criticizing the overwhelming shimmering, solarization and stair effect in rescaling, manufacturer reactions were lukewarm. The good news? We are currently testing a screen, not a hybrid, with the first circuitry of this type. And we will most likely receive another soon. Things are moving in the right direction.